$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: 10.12.2025 Judgment pronounced on: 20.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: 20.03.2026 + FAO(OS) 125/2023, CM APPL. 59959/2023, CM APPL.

1171/2024 and CM APPL. 67733/2024 AIR INDIA LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv. along with Ms. Anuradha Dutt, Mr. Lynn Pereira, Ms. Suman Yadav, Ms. Seema Mehta, Mr. Avinash K. Singh, and Mr.

Yash Johri, Advs.

versus ALL INDIA AIRCRAFT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION &

ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jay Salva Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Sameer Kumar, Mr. Vaibhav Pachauri and Mr.

Sahil, Advs. for R-1.

Ms. Anjana Gosain, Ms. Akansha Choudhary and Ms. Shreya Manjari, Advs. for R-2.

+ FAO(OS) 126/2023 and CM APPL. 60347/2023 NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY OF INDIA LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Arvind Nigam, Sr. Adv.

along with Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Mr. Amit Mishra, Mr. Azeem Samuel, Ms. Mitakshara Goyal, Mr. Akhil Kulshrestha, Mr. Vaibhav Kharbanda, Mr. Shivam Goel and Ms. Shrijeta Pratik, Advs.

versus INDIAN AIRCRAFT TECHNICIANS ASSOCIATION &

ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar and Mr.

Ramesh Babu, Advs. for R-1.

Ms. Anjana Gosain, Ms. Akansha Choudhary and Ms. Shreya Manjari, Advs. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. Through the present Appeals under Section 37, Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, A&C Act, the Appellants assail the correctness of the Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2023 [hereinafter referred to as „Impugned Judgment‟] arising from the Petition filed by the Appellants under Section 34, Section 34 of the A&C Act being, O.M.P. Nos.33/2016 and 34/2016, challenging two distinct arbitral awards dated 25.05.2016 [hereinafter referred to as „the Awards‟] passed in favour of Respondents, i.e., All India Aircraft Engineers‟ Association [hereinafter referred to as „AIAEA‟] and Indian Aircraft Technicians Association [hereinafter referred to as „IATA‟], respectively, regarding their claims.

2. The Awards assailed in the Impugned Judgment directed the Appellants to pay wage arrears along with interest and costs on the footing that arrears were payable w.e.f. 01.01.1997, and that the Appellant could not deny such arrears by relying upon the Department of Public Enterprise (DPE) Guidelines and/or Presidential Directives (PD) to contend that payments were only prospective or contingent. The Appellants assailed the Awards alleging that the Arbitral Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as „Tribunal‟] exceeded the scope of reference, disregarded binding PDs governing pay revision, and rendered findings contrary to the contractual settlements. However, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Appellants‟ Section 34 Petitions, reiterating the limited scope of interference under Section 34 and rejecting the grounds urged to assail both liability and the interest component.

3. The dispute concerns whether wage revision arrears, arising from a pay revision due w.e.f. 01.01.1997, were payable to the concerned categories of employees for the period before the dates from which actual payments were released under the settlements/PDs.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case, relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed. The same are set out hereinbelow, as culled from FAO(OS) 125/2023.

5. The Impugned Judgment and the Awards assailed therein relate to a long-standing dispute that arose almost 18 years ago between the Appellant‟s predecessor-in-interest, Indian Airlines Limited [hereinafter referred to as „IAL‟], and its employees. The contesting Respondents are two representative employee associations, one representing aircraft engineers and the other representing aircraft technicians, who raised claims regarding wage revision arrears. It may be noted that AIAEA represents interests of 480 members who served as engineers either under the Appellants or its predecessor-i